In fact, when scientists tested the sand, simulating children\u2019s play, most of them did release toxic airborne asbestos fibres<\/a>. But by this stage, the safety messaging had already spread widely.<\/p>\n To discover the truth, the parents were forced to undertake their own exhaustive research, doggedly pushing for answers after contacting officials and being met with closed doors.<\/p>\n Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email<\/a><\/p>\n Eventually, they launched a compensation claim against Kmart in New Zealand\u2019s disputes tribunal, with a decision expected to be handed down next week.<\/p>\n \u2018Low risk\u2019<\/p>\n Last November, Educational Colours sand products sold at 80 different retailers, including major Australian chain Officeworks, were recalled after samples were found to contain asbestos<\/a>.<\/p>\n Next came the recall of a range of sand products sold at Kmart, including one that Chrisp and Dingwall\u2019s young twins had been playing with for about a year.<\/p>\n The parents, both 37, were mollified by Kmart\u2019s recall notice, which assured them the products were low risk and fibres were unlikely to be released into the air unless the sand was processed by mechanical means such as crushing or pulverising.<\/p>\n Chrisp and Dingwall would later discover that Kmart had copied Educational Colours\u2019 safety assurances, despite not relating to any of its products, which had been imported by a different supplier, and without any evidence of its own.<\/p>\n They made the discovery by combing through a trove of documents released under freedom of information laws, which included emails between Kmart and NZ government officials, and the minutes from a meeting between the parties in December 2025.<\/p>\n Dave Dingwall follows instructions to double-bag the sand after the recall. Photograph: supplied\/Elle Chrisp<\/p>\n At that meeting, WorkSafe NZ told senior Kmart representatives it had a \u201chigh level of confidence\u201d that the products contained dangerous asbestos fibres that could become airborne.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the Kmart representatives told the meeting there had been \u201ccustomer confusion and hysteria\u201d about the sand.<\/p>\n Kmart did not respond to the Guardian\u2019s requests for comment.<\/p>\n Alarm bells started ringing for Chrisp when she read in a newspaper that a Kmart store had been shut and professionally decontaminated by a licensed asbestos removalist after an open tub of sand was found in the staff room.<\/p>\n \u201cI thought, wait: that same sand had been through my home and my children\u2019s hands, yet our notice told parents to put it in the bin,\u201d Chrisp says.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it warranted closing a store for Kmart, why were we told \u2018low risk\u2019? That contradiction is what sent Dave and me looking.\u201d<\/p>\n A former lawyer, Chrisp became determined to find out why parents in Australia and New Zealand were being told the products were \u201clow risk\u201d.<\/p>\n The source of the misinformation<\/p>\n While Chrisp and Dingwall watched with dismay as the retailer\u2019s safety claim become the de facto position of the Australian and New Zealand governments, they began asking officials where the \u201clow risk\u201d and \u201ccrushing or pulverising\u201d language came from.<\/p>\n \u201cNo agency could point to any evidence behind it,\u201d Chrisp says.<\/p>\n On 28 May this year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) told Chrisp and Dingwall \u2013 in an email seen by the Guardian \u2013 it had been provided the information \u201cin confidence\u201d and did not \u201chave consent to release\u201d it.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/2998.jpg\")
<\/p>\n